Strong v. City of Winter Park

155 So. 652, 115 Fla. 228, 1934 Fla. LEXIS 1491
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Strong v. City of Winter Park. Read the opinion of the Court — 117 Fla. 235
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided June 9, 1934·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A bill of exceptions taken in an action of assumpsit -states that:

“After having heard testimony for Plaintiff counsel for Plaintiff announced ‘Rest.’ Thereupon counsel for defendant moved for a directed verdict for defendant. After argument of counsel the Court indicated he would grant the motion. Whereupon counsel for plaintiff announced that plaintiff elected to take a ‘Non-Suit,’ and asked 90 days to prepare a Bill of Exceptions, and it was so ordered by the Court.”

No judgment appears in the record, therefore the writ of error must be dismissed. Mizell Live Stock Co. v. McCaskill, 57 Fla. 118, 49 So. 501; Dowling v. Weaver-Loughridge Lumber Co., 94 Fla. 1096, 114 So. 666. As to form of judgment on non-suit, see Spiker v. Hester, 101 Fla. 288, 135 So. 502.

*229 Writ of error dismissed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Teeeell and Bufoed, J. J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Strong v. City of Winter Park, 155 So. 652, 115 Fla. 228, 1934 Fla. LEXIS 1491 (Fla. 1934).

155 So. 652 (Strong v. City of Winter Park) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Downing v. Weaver-Loughridge Lumber Co.
114 So. 666 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1927)
Spiker v. Hester
133 So. 872 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
Charlotte County v. Chadwick
135 So. 502 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
Mizell Live Stock Co. v. J. J. McCaskill Co.
57 Fla. 118 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1909)